Two different dates of birth?

[casalguidi]

From the same page Trish posted from:

1, In the case of every child born alive after the commencement of this Act, it shall be the duty of the father and mother of the child, and in default of the father and mother, of the occupier of the house in which to his knowledge the child is born, and of each person present at the birth, and of the person having charge of the child, to give to the registrar, within forty-two days next after such birth, and in the presence of the registrar to sign the register.

Of course, that's not to say that it was strictly adhered to and there are clauses, as Trish has pointed out, for the provision of late registrations but it is generally known as 6 weeks and it is still 6 weeks.

Casalguidi

[trish251]

20/27 Feb doesn't appear to be the difference between 6 & 7 weeks - rather 7 and 8 weeks. There didn't seem to be a penalty for exceeding the 42 days which was why I don't think this is the reason for the change.

It was rather an interesting read - after 42 days the registrar had to contact the family - How would he know there was an unregistered babe? Did he have to go knocking on doors to see who was born   

Thus said, the first sign of penalty appeared to be after 3 months.

Trish

[tn17]

A big thanks to everyone for your responses  - has to be the first time this week I've prompted discussion on 19th century legislation 

The Baptism record I have is a legitimate transcription (made in 1919) from the original parish registers. I'm based in Australia, but when I finally make it to London (the place of birth) I'll try to view the original with my own eyes.

I've looked a bit closer at the birth certificate, and it appears the informant wasn't either of the parents, but one of the next-door neighbours who was listed as "present at birth" (strange by today's standards, but times change). I suppose it could be that she remembered the birth was on a particular day of the week but miscalculated how long ago it was. Some things are just lost in time, though.

As the baptism record is closer to the DOB, whatever it may be, and would have had the parents present, I am finding it more convincing (will still list both dates though). I don't think that there was any WWI service but I'll ask my dad. Barring that, I'll check the newspapers for a birth notice.

Thanks once again for all of your ideas.

[Subaru]

I wonder why the next door neighbour was the informant?

Seems strange.  I would also go with the baptism date given the circumstances.  Maybe the neighbour was a week behind with her memories of the baptism day.

Rosemary

[aghadowey]

I wonder why the next door neighbour was the informant?

Neighbour might have acted as midwife, mother maybe ill and father working so neighbour reported birth.

[Subaru]

Yeah but the birth wasn't actually registered until a month after the birth.  Unless the mother was really ill, and the registry office had limited opening hours (nothing's changed then )

I gather there was no law then about one of the parents being present, or even both when registering the birth.

[meles]

I've looked a bit closer at the birth certificate, and it appears the informant wasn't either of the parents, but one of the next-door neighbours who was listed as "present at birth" (strange by today's standards, but times change). I suppose it could be that she remembered the birth was on a particular day of the week but miscalculated how long ago it was. Some things are just lost in time, though.

It's interesting that the variation is a week. My guess is the neightbour remembered it was a Tuesday (or whatever) but after a bit forgot exactly which Tuesday. I do that! 

meles

[toni*]

thiss is what my book says about loking for a birth:~

until 1874 the district registrars were charged with collecting information about allthe births within their jurisdiction. Thereafter responsibility for registration rested with t  he parents. If anecdotal evidence is to be believed, many births seem to have gone unregistered or were registered or indexed in such a way as to defeat us. In the early years f civil registration some parents elected either to register the childs birth or to have them baptized butnot both, in the misguided belief that they had a choice if you cannot locate a birth registration investigate the baptism registers serving the place where your family lived.

by law births should be regsitered within 42 days, with an extension of up to six months accompanied by a financial penalty. always search at least the two quarterly indexes after the three month period in which a birth took place prior to 1984 as not everyone registered their children's births promptly.

starting in September qtr 1911 the mothers maiden name is recorded in the index making it easier to identify the correct registrations of people with common names and to pick up birth regsitartions of siblings.

the late registration of a child's birth to parents who were later married to each other might record a false birth date to conceal his or her illegitimacy. a child born out of wedlock was usually registered in the mothers name though before 1875 there was nothing to prevent an informant naming a putative father for an illegitimate baby. Later only if the father agreed and was present or his sworn declaration of paternity was produced to the registrar could his name be inserted as part of the entry. After the legitimacy act of 1926 if the parents subsequently married the child became legitimate and his birth was regsitered a second time under the married name.

[aghadowey]

Births could be registered by father or mother or other person present at birth.